Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" Banned from Canadian Radio

[Max Powers]

Freedom of speech? Guess not.

Even if it's hateful, or not everybody agrees with it, we still have the right to say it.

 

[Biggles]

The song is not "banned" - they are going to "bleep" out the word - ridiculous IMO, but there you are. It's the equivalent of broadcast TV censorship in the US, where you can show the most graphic violence, but a naked NIPPLE is a cause for massive concern.

Noob - shouldn't you be out playing hockey?!

 

[gary31]

being a huge hockey fan i thought Canada was cool (even if their did choke at the WJC).

now i just dont know...


Haha^ well said!

are you still allowed to call people HOSERS? eh

 

[Joel]

The song is not "banned" - they are going to "bleep" out the word - ridiculous IMO, but there you are. It's the equivalent of broadcast TV censorship in the US, where you can show the most graphic violence, but a naked NIPPLE is a cause for massive concern.

Noob - shouldn't you be out playing hockey?!

I played already today, and will do so tomorrow

 

[niky]

There's a difference between hate speech and a single verse in a song, which, when taken in context with the rest of the lyrics, is so obviously not hate speech that the mere assertion that it was intended as hate speech in the first place would be ludicrous even if the song was written today.

That's the funniest part of the whole thing. It's a parody of what your typical male might say about the performers of the song itself. In other words, they're suggesting that blue-collars see them (The Dire Straits) as "gay."

There's misogyny, homophobia and racism in the song. But it's all attributed to one character, and is part of the parody of the character in question.

Funny. I guess next we're going to see "Schindler's List" or "Mandela" censored because you can't even show people being racist?

 

[blaaah]

I'd buy them the rope as we have enough people already and the weak whingers are getting to be in the majority.

People who commit suicide do so by a choice that was already there.

If they don't have the foresight to see that it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem
then they'll never get it and would save themselves much suffering to go ahead and jump.

I think that would be classed as a hate crime.

 

[Keef]

Yes I uderstand what hate speech is, thanks. And my point is, why do some groups get protective legislation but not all? (although i think there should be none)

I remember an argument in one of these threads about whether or not hate crimes actually exist or not. Something like that. The idea of hate speech is a waste of time in my eyes since we already have things like harassment which cover all the bases. It's annoying yes, but is it really a crime to say "faggot" in a song? Really?

 

[ledhed]

If you send a note to Canadian com[laint department that your offended by the song " Like a prayer" not because it sucks but it is anti aithiest and has religion mentioned ..will that get banned ? --I really hate that song ..or milli vanilli --and vanilla ice ..or did they ban themselves ?

Money for nothing is good song ..btw in canada ..don't they know about EDIT ? ..We have bleep out parts of songs all the time in USA..try listening to a rap station.

 

[PzR Slim]

I'd buy them the rope as we have enough people already and the weak whingers are getting to be in the majority.

People who commit suicide do so by a choice that was already there.

If they don't have the foresight to see that it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem
then they'll never get it and would save themselves much suffering to go ahead and jump.

Thats is incredibly short sighted of you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-death-by-bullies-kept-diary-of-abuse.html

 

[G.T.Ace]

That's the funniest part of the whole thing. It's a parody of what your typical male might say about the performers of the song itself. In other words, they're suggesting that blue-collars see them (The Dire Straits) as "gay."

There's misogyny, homophobia and racism in the song. But it's all attributed to one character, and is part of the parody of the character in question.

Funny. I guess next we're going to see "Schindler's List" or "Mandela" censored because you can't even show people being racist?

Indeed, I absolutey agree about that.
Like I said, the censoring is ridiculous in this case, but I find it disgusting how people here are trying to "defend" their so called "freedom of speech". If you use hate speech, because someone is gay or because someone is black, or yes, because he is a fat white teenager, you always want to harm/offend that person or group of people, which is something that shouldn't be allowed. You are not allowed to hurt someone physical and you shouldn't be allowed to hurt someone psychical.

 

[OG_Wretch]

Thats is incredibly short sighted of you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-death-by-bullies-kept-diary-of-abuse.html

I do not go about tormenting the unfortunate for sport like these people did
and have been the victim of such abuse as a child and made other choices than suicide.

Do I blame or thank the bullies for helping me see the light?

Or do I just thank my own will and genes for being strong enough to bear the days and months of torment?

The big difference is that these offenses are being pulled out of the air
that had no intent behind them other than what the poor little puss puss
that can't bear to hear whatever it is that's so terribly offensive is putting on it.

 

[AClockworkGrape]

There's a difference between hate speech and a single verse in a song, which, when taken in context with the rest of the lyrics, is so obviously not hate speech that the mere assertion that it was intended as hate speech in the first place would be ludicrous even if the song was written today.

Let alone the idea that the Canadian government thinks that it has the power to reach back a quarter of a century and retroactively label artistic work with terminology that is already questionable when applied to things created for the present.

I meant in a general sense, not just this song. I have no problem with the song itself.

Edit: I would just ignore this OG guy, seems like one ignorant individual.

 

[PzR Slim]

I do not go about tormenting the unfortunate for sport like these people did
and have been the victim of such abuse as a child and made other choices than suicide.

Do I blame or thank the bullies for helping me see the light?

Or do I just thank my own will and genes for being strong enough to bear the days and months of torment?

The big difference is that these offenses are being pulled out of the air
that had no intent behind them other than what the poor little puss puss
that can't bear to hear whatever it is that's so terribly offensive is putting on it.

I didn't say you did. I just found it incredibly short sighted of you to tar everyone who commits suicide with the same brush. Would be a bit like me saying that all Americans are fat becasue they eat so much crap. Very rarely is eveything so cut and dry in life. And if people crack under psychological torment and commit suicide I think to label them as weak is just incredible crass and unintelligent.

 

[DK]

I can understand censoring the offensive words here, but I can't understand completely banning the song from the airwaves. It's not like they meant to promote violence and hatred against gays.

 

[OG_Wretch]

I meant in a general sense, not just this song. I have no problem with the song itself.

Edit: I would just ignore this OG guy, seems like one ignorant individual.

You don't have the self control to ignore me even though I really wish you would.

Maybe once you hit puberty and them little nads drop you'll learn to face things that bother you?

Hows that?
Was it hate?

Are you going to kill yourself if I don't stop?

That would sure teach me.

Mentally unstable people should not be allow out where they can trip on their own feelings...
...that means no internet too.

 

[AClockworkGrape]

You don't have the self control to ignore me even though I really wish you would.

Maybe once you hit puberty and them little nads drop you'll learn to face things that bother you?

Hows that?
Was it hate?

Are you going to kill yourself if I don't stop?

That would sure teach me.

Mentally unstable people should not be allow out where they can trip on their own feelings...
...that means no internet too.

Man, you got me to a tee! Sorry, I didn't know someone being mentally and physically abused committing suicide would be a weak person. When one is in that much pain they'll do whatever it takes to just end it.

Also, I have never once considered suicide, but I have experienced bullying when I lived in SC during middle school. So I know how it can make someone feel.

I find that people on the internet can be incredibly stupid people, thanks for proving my theory.

 

[OG_Wretch]

I didn't say you did. I just found it incredibly short sighted of you to tar everyone who commits suicide with the same brush. Would be a bit like me saying that all Americans are fat becasue they eat so much crap. Very rarely is eveything so cut and dry in life. And if people crack under psychological torment and commit suicide I think to label them as weak is just incredible crass and unintelligent.

You are free to your own opinion as it has very little effect on me and my life.

People who take the easy way out are weak.

No one need explain how it works to me.
I've had friends do it and even considered it myself once or twice.
I did more thinking on it and decided to stop feeling sorry for poor little me stayed curious instead.
My friends?
I was there for them but they left anyway so...screw them for being so weak.

I see nothing wrong with my brush.
People who are so sad they kill themselves are too consumed/weak
to see the big picture that includes more than just them.

 

[Max Powers]

Indeed, I absolutey agree about that.
Like I said, the censoring is ridiculous in this case, but I find it disgusting how people here are trying to "defend" their so called "freedom of speech". If you use hate speech, because someone is gay or because someone is black, or yes, because he is a fat white teenager, you always want to harm/offend that person or group of people, which is something that shouldn't be allowed. You are not allowed to hurt someone physical and you shouldn't be allowed to hurt someone psychical.

Disgusting? I find it disgusting that some people think I can't say a word if I so please.

or has freedom of speech become 'freedom of speech as long as everybody agrees with it and nobody is hurt'?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Westboro Baptist Church are a bunch of slimy, good for nothing individuals, but even they should have the right to say their piece, even if it's purely antagonizing hate speech. Guess what? Even if they're out there calling everybody fags, people still know they're a bunch of lunatics only in it for the attention, and they aren't taken seriously.

 

[G.T.Ace]

No, they shouldn't have the right to say what they are doing, just like Neo-Nazis shouldn't be allowed to do hate speeches and things like that. As longs as you say and do things just to "hurt" a certain group of people it shouldn't be allowed.

This has nothing to do with "agreeing" on something.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I can understand people want to restrict.

Accepting some language generally also means people accept the underlying philosophy (not always consciously). I once quit a group of people since they found it OK to play neo-nazi music.

On the other hand I never saw all the controversy in this song and provocative songs are there to change the world as well. e.g. "Fight the Power" of "Public Enemy"

My measure for this one would be: if you turn "Money for nothing" of the "Dire Straights" you have to turn "Smalltown Boy" of "Bronski Beat" immediately after it.

 

[Max Powers]

@GT ace
Clearly we have a completely different perspective of this then.

If somebody goes around spreading hate speech like neo-nazis or the WBC that I used in my example, then the public is going to shun them anyway, and they won't be taken seriously. Of course people will get offended, but every word that hurts can't be banned, can it?

I could hurt any girl I wanted to right now by calling her a slut. Does that mean that I should do it? Hell no, if I did one of her male friends/boyfriend would probably try to kick my ass, a natural deterrant. That word would hurt almost any girl, but that doesn't mean it should be banned from speech or something.

Whenever the government steps in and tells me what I am and am not allowed to say scares me a whole hell of a lot more than the ramifications of somebody using the word fag.

 

[G.T.Ace]

and they won't be taken seriously.

There are way too many people who take them seriously, that's why their organizations are so big.

I could hurt any girl I wanted to right now by calling her a slut.

I don't know how it is in Canada and the USA, but if you offend someone in the public in Germany he, or she, can press charges against you (although "slut" might not be enough). I think that's a good thing because if you offend me, I should always have the right to defend myself against that, just like this very forum here won't allow you to offend other users.

EDIT: Again, don't get me wrong, censoring "Money for Nothing" is ridiculous, but you cannot defend everything with "freedom of speech".

 

[PzR Slim]

You are free to your own opinion as it has very little effect on me and my life.

People who take the easy way out are weak.

No one need explain how it works to me.
I've had friends do it and even considered it myself once or twice.
I did more thinking on it and decided to stop feeling sorry for poor little me stayed curious instead.
My friends?
I was there for them but they left anyway so...screw them for being so weak.

I see nothing wrong with my brush.
People who are so sad they kill themselves are too consumed/weak
to see the big picture that includes more than just them.

I have to say your forum name suits you perfectly.

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/wretch

Are you really that ignorant.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

@ Max Power and G.T.Ace

there is a cultural difference between the US and Europe.

US: freedom is essential
Europe: protection of the week is essential

So US has protection of the weak and Europe has freedom, but the priorities are different.

There is no good or bad in this discussion, it is a choice.


I love the European social security system and I understand that the US does not want it since they want to have the choice how to organize their life.

==============================

To come back to the theme:

INXS: Words are weapons, sharper than knives

FAITHLESS: Misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction

I see indeed that the only wrong thing is:

FAITHLESS: Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction

The US would state: if someone does misinformation: shout louder!
Europe would state: if someone does misinformation: shut them up!

 

[PzR Slim]

if somebody goes around spreading hate speech like neo-nazis or the WBC that I used in my example, then the public is going to shun them anyway, and they won't be taken seriously. Of course people will get offended, but every word that hurts can't be banned, can it?

Ever heard of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka? Nazi hate speech led to the murder of millions of people becasue the public bought into the rhetoric. Whilst freedom of speech is an ideal, if that freedom leads to hatred, violence or murder then it is unacceptable.

 

[Max Powers]

Ever heard of Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka? Nazi hate speech led to the murder of millions of people becasue the public bought into the rhetoric. Whilst freedom of speech is an ideal, if that freedom leads to hatred, violence or murder then it is unacceptable.

Violence and murder are already illegal, so yeah, then it becomes unacceptable.

The public giving the government way too much power had just as much to do with the rise of nazism as the hate speech. If you can't have one, take the other?

Also, Vince's assessment rings very true. If we don't have our freedom, what do we have?

 

[PzR Slim]

Violence and murder are already illegal, so yeah, then it becomes unacceptable.

The public giving the government way too much power had just as much to do with the rise of nazism as the hate speech. If you can't have one, take the other?

Also, Vince's assessment rings very true. I value freedom over anything else.

What freedom do you really think you have got?

 

[OG_Wretch]

I have to say your forum name suits you perfectly.

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/wretch

Are you really that ignorant.

Ignorant?

About some things I'm sure but I have a good bit of life experience to back up what I think and feel.

If you had lived my life you'd agree with the "forum name" but for different reasons.

Perspective is the Mothers of All F....ers.

You see how I can respond without bunching my panties up in a wad
and trying to get even with a bunch of labels cast about?
That is what freedom gives me and you if you choose it.

It really doesn't matter what you think of me to me but,
what I think apparently has such great importance
that you feel the need to put it down or stop it somehow.
You cannot.

Words by themselves only have power if you the listener gives it to them.

Is this such a dangerous idea that it needs to be put down?

What happens if someone isn't there to stop the bad man from saying bad things?
Does one have to stand there and listen or believe what is said nevermind act on them?

You have the freedom/choice to be or not be offended but you do not have the freedom to decide what I think or say.

I'll keep make my own choices on calling a spade a spade and accept the social consequences of doing so, thanks.

As soon as you impliment a law such as you can't say this or that
you lose some or even more freedoms yourself that you didn't intend.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If we don't have our freedom, what do we have?

Just to explain the European sentiment:

If we need to fear all the time what do we have?

=====================

There is a difference in vision between:

Fighting for freedom.

Accepting some restrictions, since it allows to worry less.

=> As you notice it has been fascinating me recently.

I do believe:
* the US mentality might ask too much from the weak to fight and will walk over them.
* the European mentality might give up too easily and should think more about accepting restrictions that do not deliver results.

============================

So back to "Money for Nothing":

* Should we allow, harassing (it is just freedom of speech) people by calling them names?
* Should we restrict a song that has been played 25 years; since now someone things it is too offensive?

 

[OG_Wretch]

Having fear is natural but facing those fears is what separates us from the sheep.

Yes, there is a joke in there but I'm not a full blood Scot.